Corporate Social Responsibility in Present Business Environment - Research Paper Example

Corporate Social Responsibility in Present Business Environment Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................03 Historical Developments....................................................................................................03 Challenges and issues in social and environmental accountability and reporting……….07 Real World Cases of Being Socially Responsible.............................................................12 Model for CSR……………………………………………………….........................................15 Conclusion........................................................................................................................18 References........................................................................................................................20 Introduction Corporate Industry is always connected to the word - 'profit'. Shareholders transform capital into business and look ahead to get dividend in return of their investment in terms of profit. It is unquestionable that the key purpose and requirementment of a corporate is profit-maximization and fulfilling the shareholders' anticipation. Nevertheless, in todays’ business environment some ethical issues (e.g. accused NIKE for hiring child labor etc.), as well as emergence of corporate scandals have alerted the world to re-contemplate the corporate accountability. Historical Developments Concept of CSR was introduced in 19th century in order to illustrate the importance and effect of being socially responsible. There are only two principles up to that time - principle of charity which suggests that well off people should help those less lucky and principle of stewardship which advocates that corporate have the obligation to serve public interest since they are getting business input from the society. However, in today’s business environment, rapid growth of globalization significantly expands the business scope and widens the company's' roles. Stakeholder theory, by Freeman (1994), suggests that the interest of the company's stakeholder (which includes shareholders, customers, suppliers, workers, community, administration and regulators) should also been taken into account in the day to day operation in order to be a successful business. He suggested that, in order to get better knowledge of CSR, the first step is to look into its definition. Nevertheless, CSR has never been simply defined because many academics and profession has come out with their own definitions based on several viewpoints. CSR usually refers to long-term commitment which requires large amount of resources in order to sustain in the long-run and CSR might not affect the organization immediately (Sukh, 2006). Long period and huge efforts are required in order to build good reputation in CSR while to destroy it only needs a short time with little disruption. Good reputation in CSR can be destroyed suddenly by careless behavior or poor services and the effort that built up the goodwill might be wasted (Tay, 2005, 40). The recent developments in CSR enhanced growth in productivity, improved corporate performance and increased employment contentment by generally lowering the turnover rate. Skillful employees are retained and this allows the company gain competitive advantages. Thus, reputation and image of a company are much more driven by word of mouth rather than by advertising (Baker, 2006). Good reputation in CSR enables the company to fulfill customer satisfaction leading to increased sales and corporate performance. Hence, consumer tends to boycott the social irresponsible company. NIKE, the world well-known sport shoes manufacturer, has been accused for hiring child labor with a low labor rate prevailed in Pakistan and Cambodia (Boggan, 2001). Therefore, consumer boycotts their products which are produced in the third world which have suspicion of a child being involved in the process. Furthermore, some empirical studies show that CSR is worth for business. Tay (2005) argues that current financial and quantifiable benefits of being socially responsible were proved when he raised his sample company's profit by 38%. Further, Orlitzky et. al., (2003) as cited by Carol & Ambika (2006), found positive association in an analysis of 52 Corporate Social Performance (CSP) and Corporate Financial Performance (CFP) studies. Lewis (2001) revealed that in current scenerio, customers are becoming more concerned about CSR when making their buying decision. According to MORI, the second largest survey firm in United Kingdom, the percentage of customers' concern rose from 28% in year 1998 to 41%> in year 1999. Hence, the awareness level is influenced by the understandability of CSR concept. Therefore, it tends to affect the undergraduates' CSR awareness level when there is a knowledge gap between the accurate meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the understandability of undergraduates towards CSR concept. Another important theory of CSR is known as Disclosure Theory. Sproles et al., (1978) as cited by Pomering (2005) believed that increasing disclosure information will increase the efficient consumer awareness towards CSR. The intention to purchase is more likely to increase when the information about the socially-responsible features have been provided (Mohr & Webb, 2005, 121). The issue of CSR has become largely recognized by the people around the world. Consumers nowadays are much more concern about the CSR information. Alexander and Nicholls (2006) indicated that consumers are more concern about authentic and reliable information about the background of the product that they purchase. The main medium for the company is to communicate their CSR activities through the annual report or their CSR report. The legislation requirements to disclose CSR report to public seems to be more general in western countries such as United States (U.S), Canada, and United Kingdom (U.K) and so on. Some countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden enforce companies to reveal their environmental performance, which is accessible to public. US companies have to provide information on their emissions to the Environmental Protection Authority, which is available for publicity (Carol & Ambika, 2006, 305). The CSR report will help public to get a clear picture about the companies' CSR activities and identify whether the companies are socially responsible or not. The standards and requirement of CSR report might be different for each country. However, there are some guidelines to help a company to assess its CSR performance. According to Carol and Ambika (2006), a good CSR report should include the following criteria such as CSR report must be transparent, demonstrate a genuine attempt to be accountable to all key stakeholders, cover negative as well as positive impacts on society and the environment, demonstrate corporate acceptance of its social, ethical and environmental responsibility, be complete, include element of effects on communities and the environment which are significant to key stakeholders groups. Smith (2000) proposed three limitations of responses to CSR such as they must be aware of corporate CSR practices, they must be concerned about the firm's particular CSR practices and willing to consider these activities in their purchase decisions, and once in the market for the product category, they must be able to easily choose a socially-responsible competitor. People who are well-informed of the companies' CSR activities are precursor to support for the companies practicing good CSR which information is one of the basic inputs of rational choice. Schüler and Cording, (2006), Mohr and Webb (2005), as cited by Pomering (2005), suggests that they need the information about the company's activities to differentiate from the poor CSR practicing companies. Some companies such as DiGi Telecommunication, Golden Hope Plantations and PricewaterhouseCoopers succeed after practicing CSR and the positive result gained are remarkable in Malaysia (ACCA, Malaysia, 27). DiGi even encourages the media to be present at its annual general meeting. It is useful for the company to show the public or its stakeholders on how efficiently the companies incorporate CSR into their business operation and in the overall corporate governance framework. In addition, the government also notices the importance to cultivate and increase the CSR awareness of the undergraduate as they are the future corporate leaders, at the same time, encourage no matter public or private sector to generate CSR activities. For example, a seminar was held in the Sunway College on "Business with a heart", to infuse CSR mind set to the undergraduates (CSR Malaysia, 2008). However, whether the efforts of the government have successfully increased the awareness of CSR among undergraduates is still questionable. Challenges and issues in social and environmental accountability and reporting Different debates and opinions about the accountability of CSR have emerged over the past few decades Adam Smith, as cited by Velasquez (2006), asserts that market competition which pursuit of profit will ensure the maximum social welfare. Henderson (2001), refused to accept CSR into business because they claim that the only objective of business is to maximize the profit while any action that diverge with the aim of profit-maximization should be left to the Government. CSR is viewed as distraction for the business operation. The most famous argument against the corporations being charged with social responsibilities was introduced by Milton Friedman (1970). Friedman criticized CSR as distorting the allocation of resources efficiently. The corporate is responsible to use the shareholders funds wisely and in profitable ways. CSR only be worth if it would improve the corporate profitability greater than alternative investment opportunities. Windsor (2001) as cited by Fisher and Lovell (2006) supported Friedman's view by suggesting that, all business activities should "add value" or "add shareholders' value". Accordingly, manager has no right to use the shareholders' fund for charity purpose. Nonetheless, there is contra with the concept of CSR, which aim to improve social welfare, if the corporate uses CSR as a tool to gain profit. Besides, Friedman (1970) also argued that companies are considered as responsible by obeying the law. Companies make profit and pay dividend to individuals (i.e. shareholders) and let them decide which charities or public services that they want to donate to. Stakeholders should invest in the company which agrees with their policies Thus, corporate pay tax to government, through their profit. Government can use the funds that collected and re-contribute to the society. The government should raise fund no matter through taxation or charges the public for the social purpose if the fund is insufficient (Griffiths and Wall, 2005). The last criticism of Friedman is to argue that corporate are not real people and should not posses any responsibility. Furthermore, the return of CSR is not guaranteed. Thus, initiative cost to implement CSR is high. Costly expertise and consultants are needed to evaluate which area that the company can put more effort to improve its CSR performance effectively. There is always an opportunity cost for each decision that made. If the company thinks that CSR is more important and decided to spend its limited resources into CSR, relatively less resource are allocated for the business activities. The opportunity cost of making more profit has been sacrificed. However, those support the CSR concept, believe that companies that practice CSR has enjoyed a range of triple bottom-line (profit, environment and social) benefits and ensure social welfare. Companies which practicing CSR concerned about their employees' career and personal development. Better workforce is able to be attracted since employees will prefer to work for them and feel secured. Besides, employees are motivated and encouraged to discover innovative ways to assist the companies to reduce product cost as well as to strengthen the company's operation by identifying new opportunities (Tay, 2005, 39). The benefits of CSR as summarized by Nilsson & Rahmani (2008) are that it enhances reputation, enhances employee satisfaction and loyalty, enhances product life cycles, improves risk management due to a wider audience, innovation improvements, higher probability to attract investments, supports marketing objectives, contributions to general business goals, reduces operating costs, reduces regulatory oversight, and builds strong community relationships. Legislation is insufficient to protect welfare of society (Griffiths and Wall, 2005). There are many flaws in the business law. Government may not be appropriate to intervene in some areas and might be late to solve the mess caused by corporate. Thus, government policy establishes the expectation of what the organization should do, but not force them to do so. CSR should be promoted to increase the awareness and sensibility of the public and companies. For Instance, Malaysian government realizes the significance of CSR as the regulator to the corporate performance in order to guarantee society welfare and the compliance of corporate for being social responsible depends on the awareness level of the public. Moreover, CSR is potential to enhance country growth in order to achieve Malaysia's 2020 Vision, which emphasis the growth no matter socially or economically (Yakcop, 2006). As the result, government has advocated to cultivate the CSR awareness, especially among the students, who will become next generation of CSR leaders of future corporate Malaysia. Malaysian government tends to inspire undergraduates to become true advocates for social well-being (CSR Malaysia, 2008). However, the government cannot conceive any return on their effort unless they clearly understand the concept of CSR, their perception towards CSR and what elements constitute for good CSR. Besides, since there are many empirical studies come out with the result that CSR really enhances corporate performance, no matter financially or non-financially, but do it regardless of the high or low awareness level. Since CSR is an ethical issue, the ethical awareness will significantly influence a person's view and action towards CSR. According to Fisher and Lovell (2006), the ethical awareness reflected by a person feels uncomfortable because an issue affronts their instinctive values. At this stage, people might know what constitute right and what is wrong but don't know the reasons. However, there are at least 4 perspectives when someone will tend to take into consideration when they make their ethical judgment according to Fisher & Lovell (2006): The first perspective is to know what is ethically or morally wrong about a situation or an issue. People tend to influence by the information that they received and their knowledge, which makes them to judge whether the situation is ethical or unethical. Second perspective is to know what is ideally should be done about the situation or an issue. People tend to find solution about what they should do rationally in relation to an issue or situation. The third perceptive is whether they think all the other interested persons and parties think about in the same situation or an issue. People tend to identify the other persons thinking and the expectations of others. Finally is to what should be done about it given all the constraints and complexities of the real world. People tend to be self-preservative. They are aware of the external world and rationalize on how they should act. They are not concerned about what should do in moral terms, but, what is sensible and practical to do. This paper discusses the developments, challenges and understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR), by business and academics in today’s business environment. CSR definitions evaluate along with the changing of business environment and the globalization (expending of business size). The inconsistency of definition affects the public perceive level as well as understanding level of CSR and leads the corporate to poor practicing of CSR. As public always perceive that a company consider social responsible while doing things legally, however, it is not absolute in real life. The idea of legal or illegal is defined by a country's law. Many people have the idea that things that are legal must be justice (moral or ethics). However in the real world, some contradictions can arise. Fisher and Lovell (2006) had identified the 4 combination between the legal or illegal and justice or not justice: There are actions that are ethical and legal but are not enforced by legal obligation. Although some activities are good and legal, but corporate might not practice them because it is not an obligation to do that. Second is an action that is wrong and illegal. If the actions are definitely illegal and not ethical, it should be condemned. Finally is an action that is legal but are not necessarily ethical. In this category, the actions are legal, but it is not good practice. This is strengthen by Friedman's view, which suggested that the legal obligation of corporate is to maximize the shareholder's profit, as long as they did not break the law and it is considered responsible to the social. However, Soloman (1993) as cited by Fisher & Lovell (2006) argued that, the existence of business is to supply wealth and happiness to the society. There is an action that is illegal but ethical. There are some laws which can be said immoral but are legally right and ethical to break or confront it. For example, when a country declares a war, it is legal in their country but is not ethical to do so. People should disobey law but should not resist and the law not deserve respect but enforce to do so. The problem now is how to define the corporate are socially responsible or irresponsible. In order to have a clear picture about the elements of CSR, Caroli (2006) try to philosophize and categories level of CSR into the 4 layer of pyramid. The economical responsibility is the foundation of the pyramid. It suggests that the only means for company's responsibility is profit-maximization. This layer is strengthened by Milton Friedman's maximizing shareholders value perspective and the CSR viewed as distraction for the business. The second layer of CSR is the legal responsibility. It suggests that the company is considered responsible when they obey the law, at the same time, profit-maximization. Firms must act according to laws and standards that control the market and the society of which they form a part. However, legislation is not enough to protect the society welfare as the government may not appropriate to intervene in some area of the business. Ethical reflects unwritten codes, regulations and values implicitly derived from society that transcend merely legal frameworks. Ethical responsibility refers to the norms of the society, not the law. Companies are not necessarily to be ethically responsible. The last layer of the pyramid is the philanthropic responsibility, where the company strives to be good corporate citizen on voluntary basis (Nelson & Rahmani, 2008). The true meaning of CSR can be enhanced by exposing undergraduates to actual best practices of well-recognized corporation and organization (CSR Malaysia, 2008). There are two real cases which explain the socially responsible and socially irresponsible. Real World Cases of Being Socially Responsible A good example of the successful CSR practice company is The Body Shop, with anti animal testing. Although The Body Shop price is slightly higher than its competitors, but consumer still willing to pay for it (The Body Shop, 2008). Besides, the world famous fast food company - McDonald also adopts the CSR strategy. They spend money on community projects, endowment of scholarship and establishment of foundation to help those poor children to have opportunity to study. They also conduct the campaign to raise fund for those poor country such as Africa. Other than that, McDonald also encourages their workers to volunteer participate in community work and provide enough training (McDonalds, 2008). As a result, goodwill of the company will be created and directly enhance McDonald reputation. NIKE, the world well-known sport shoes manufacturer, has been accused for hiring child labor with a low labor rate in Pakistan and Cambodia (Boggan, 2001). As the result, consumers boycott their products which are produced in the third world countries and which have suspicion of a child being involved in the process. However, workers can be avoided from the improper treatment by the company because they are protected by the labor union. Recently, the toxic baby milk scandal in China, once again, raised the awareness of corporate social responsibility. The toxic milk scandal has killed 4 children and sickened approximately 53,000 babies in China. Most of the victims come from middle income or even poor family which unable to support the huge medical fees. However, intervention of the China government seems to be too late as the incident has already occurred. In Malaysian context, a company deemed to be good in CSR is giving donation to the charity. Dr. John Raslan, as cited by ACCA Malaysia (2006), illustrated that most of the Malaysian still equate CSR as donation to the charity purpose. They are unable to identify what component constitutes good CSR such as commitment to obey the law and basic ethical standards, improving community well-being, being responsible for the consequences of its actions and contributing and sustaining business as a corporate citizen (Tay, 2005, 40). Shi (2007), argue that the western society have better understanding about the concept of CSR and willing to participate. But, for the developing countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and China have least knowledge which leads them to be least concern to the issue of CSR. People tend to act rationally when dealing with ethical issues and their actions reflect then awareness towards an issue. Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) revealed that only 20% consumers support corporate social responsible company. They then concluded that CSR is not a main criterion to influence consumer's consumption intention. Besides, Joergens (2006) found that consumer's personal need is more crucial than ethical issues. Carrigan and Attalla (2001) found that, the company's ethical or unethical behaviors have unequal influence on consumer attitudes. As the result, they then concluded that, they might be probable that consumers keep away from purchasing product from a socially irresponsible company but not necessarily support for social responsible company's product. It is undeniable that the purchasing power of the students seems to be increasing and many researches have developed new frameworks in order to identify the factors influencing their buying behavior. Some researchers found that they are not being aware about the company's CSR practice when making buying decision, and they are more influenced by the brand name and peer's influence. This situation might be due to the limited exposure of the companies' CSR activities. According to FTSE, The Index Company, FTSE 4 Good Index has been designed in year 2001 in order to measure the performance of companies using globally recognized CSR standards. It also shows the ranking of corporate companies based on the efforts and responsibilities they contributed to their stakeholders mainly on three areas which are environment, human rights and social issues. It is particularly useful in acting as a benchmark since the awareness of CSR is tremendously increasing. However, this index is not familiar for public. The Malaysian government is at the same time contributing to assist the corporate world in having a clear framework of CSR. The Silver book issued by the Malaysian Government guides the government linked companies (GLCs) in becoming responsible corporate citizens while creating value for shareholders. However, companies' CSR report is not common in Malaysia and the information on the CSR reports of companies is difficult to obtain (Pomering, 2005). Moreover, the companies are not enforced by law to disclose their CSR reports although there are guidelines to assist the companies to prepare their CSR reports (Carols & Ambika, 2006, 310). CSR in Malaysia commonly is low, particularly relating to fair business information (Ramasamy & Hung, 2004, 21). Although there are some companies do prepare CSR report, it is merely to disclose to their shareholders in their annual general meeting (AGM). For others, it is difficult to judge whether the particular company is practicing CSR or not. Ramasamy and Hung (2004) revealed that the awareness of Malaysian towards CSR tends to increase in the recent years due to the appearance of some ethical organizations such as Federation of Malaysia Consumers Association and WWF Malaysia. This kind of organizational support has significantly contributed to the social and environmental awareness in Malaysia. Malaysian government realizes the potential of CSR to enhance the country's growth no matter socially or economically which integral to achieve 2020 vision (Yakcop, 2006). As the result, Malaysian government put more efforts (such as tax-relief), to facilitate companies to practice CSR in order to create and propagate a culture of better corporate performance, both financial and social (Ramasamy, 2007, 20). Model for CSR The proposed sample for 'model' is appropriate for large businesses. This model is consisting of three parts. Every part of the model reflect a theoretical approach of researchers in CSR. This type of model is prepared to fulfil a couple of requirements. a. to propose a methodical explanation of the CSR background, including the connected processes and applications in it. b. to build up an outline for classifying and analysing the credible descriptive conditions or factors that affect the approach used by CSR stakeholder dialogue in the industry. The model is relying on the following hypothesiss 1. The business setting comprises of four interconnected but systematically different practices. 2. Each component of these parts can be assessed by different levels of outlook. 3. This process consists of two segments and five dissimilar steps. 4. The motivation behind this is to achieve reliability (hypothesis) Conclusion Hence, current developments in field of CSR have changed the actual meaning of profit. They have made both the manufacturers and consumers far more aware of what exactly is happening inside close doors of a company. However, the topic of Corporate Social Responsibility in this rapidly changing commercial era, companies can easily ignore the 'Law of Repetitive Consequences', which may cause maximum global upheaval. As the oft-misquoted line from George Santayana's Reason in Common Sense, states "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Right from the 19th century until to this 21st century the world of business have experienced several crisis namely; Wall Street Crash of 1929, CEO dismissals (e.g.: IBM, Kodak, Honeywell) 1990's, East Asian Financial Crisis 1997, major corporate collapse and disaster (i.e. Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, AOL, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, Tyco), corporate crime (i.e. Union Carbide (India), tainted milk powder (China) and other corporate failure (environmental, wildlife, child labor, civil war, employee retrenchment, price fixing). These are devastating history resulted from various failures of corporate leaders in the past in acknowledging the significance of corporate social diligence. This review clearly indicates that the malpractice in the corporate mainly steam from corporate leaders. Therefore, by learning from the past, the future leader will able to minimize or solve the malpractices. In today’s business environment, best practice of CSR has led toward better ethical decision, trustworthy, equality, better service, and career advancement and enriches performance. It is believed that organizations should put in CSR has main component in managing business. References ACCA Malaysia, (2006). Corporate Social Reporting: Making Business Sense in Malaysia, Accountants Today, Professional at the Forefront, Vol.19 No.5, 26 - 29. Adams, C, & Ambika, Z (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act Responsibly and be Accountable, Accountants Today, Professionalism at the Forefront, Vol.19 No.3, 24 -28. Alexander, A. & Nicholls, A. (2006). Rediscovering consumer-producer involvement: A network perspective on fair trade marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 40(1 1/12), 1236-1253. Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase behavior? The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560-577. Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, JJ. , (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics 42 (3), 281-304. Boggan, S. (2001). Nike Admits to Mistakes Over Child Labor, CommonDreams.org News Center. Boulstridge, E. and Carrigan M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behavior gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4(4), 355-368. Carroll, A. B. (2006). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance,* Academy of Management Review, Pg 300-310. CSR Malaysia, (2008). MBA grads spurn 'tainted' jobs. CSR Malaysia, (2008). Molding young minds towards Corporate Social Responsibility. Fisher C. & Lovell A., (2006). Business Ethics and Values: Individual, Corporate and International Perspectives, 2nd edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, England. Freeman, R.E., (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-21. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine, Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company. Griffiths, A. & Wall, S. (2005). Economics for business and management: a Student Text. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Henderson, D. (2001), "The case against corporate social responsibility", Policy, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.28-32. Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(3), 360-371. Lantos, P. (2001). The Boundaries of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.18, No.7, 595. Lewis, S., (2001). Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 31-35. Mallenbaker (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility - What does it Mean, available at: www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/definition.html, Mc. Donald's Corporation, (2008). Mc. Donald's 2008 Corporate Responsibility Report. Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J., (2005). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Price on Consumer Responses. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121-147. Nilsson C. & Shadi Rahmani, (2008). Global Consideration in Corporate Social Responsibility: Case Study of Three MNCs. Pomering, A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): An Examination of Consumer Awareness, Evaluation and Purchase Action. Ramasamy, B. & Hung, W.T., (2004). A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility Awareness: Malaysian and Singaporean Firm, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 39 (1), 121-147 Ramasamy, S. (2004). Business Ethnics: Is It a Contradiction? Accountants Today, Professional at the Forefront, Vol. 1 7 No.7, p.20 - 2 1 . Schuler, D.A., Cording, M., (2006). A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioural model for consumers. Academy of Management Review 31 (3), 540-558. Shi, Y.J. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility for Developing Country Enterprise - Lost War in Pertaining Global Competitiveness? Globalization and the Good Corporate. Singh, S.D.R. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding the Metaphor, Accountants Today, Professional at the Forefront, Vol. 19 No. 8, 25-27. Smith, N.C., (2000). Changes in corporate practices in response to public interest advocacy and actions: The role of consumer boycotts and socially responsible corporate social responsibility. Working paper. London: Centre for Marketing, London Business School. Susan Tan, (2007). Silver Book Offers Guideline, The Star Online. Tay K. L., (2005). CSK Challenge & Trends in Corporate Malaysia, Accountants Today, Professionalism at the Forefront, Vol. 1 8 No. 1 , 40 - 43 The Body Shop, 2008. Velasquez, M.G., (2006). Business Ethnics: Concepts and Cases, 6th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Yakop,N.M. (2006). Launch of Bursa Malaysia's CSR Framework for PLCs in Conjunction with the Rat Race 2006, Perbendaharaan Malaysia. Read More